Report on the Human Rights Commissioner's Visit to Curtin IRPC in July 2000
Report on the Human Rights Commissioner's Visit to Curtin IRPC in July 2000
On Saturday 29 July 2000 the then Human Rights Commissioner, Mr Chris Sidoti, assisted by a consultant, Dr Mary Crock, Senior Lecturer in Law at Sydney University, visited the Curtin Immigration Reception and Processing Centre outside Derby in the Kimberley region of WA. They made observations and obtained information about accommodation, programs and services, and particulars about the conditions and treatment of detainees. This report documents Commissioner Sidoti's observations and the information he obtained with Dr Crock's assistance.
Unlike the Commissioner's 1998-99 detailed review of the four then-existing centres, the Commissioner's objective at Curtin was to see the facilities for himself and to signal to the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs the Commission's continuing interest in conditions and treatment. It was a spot-check and not a detailed investigation.
At Curtin the Commissioner interviewed, in private, a group of six detainees (the detainees' consultative committee whose members are selected by ACM management) but the time available did not permit him to interview other detainees at the centre. He was also briefed in detail by the DIMA Manager, Mr Greg Wallace, and the ACM Manager, Mr Grant Chapman. The Commissioner also toured the centre to inspect the sleeping, bathroom, recreation, education and dining facilities and spoke briefly with some members of staff. Ms Phillipa Godwin, First Assistant Secretary in DIMA's Border Control and Compliance Division accompanied Commissioner Sidoti and Dr Crock.
In late July Commissioner Sidoti and Dr Crock received information from former Curtin detainees and former ACM employees at Curtin IRPC, which is also included in this report.
This report describes and comments upon the information obtained and the facilities observed. The Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs has been provided with an opportunity to comment on the report and submitted a response on 15 December 2000.
In addition, during his visit to WA the Commissioner received specific allegations he considered should be dealt with as complaints. These matters were referred to the Commission's Complaint Handling Section. The Commission treats complaints confidentially during investigations and conciliations and therefore the information provided by complainants is not included in this report.
In its inspections of immigration detention centres, the Commission compares the treatment and conditions observed with international minimum human rights standards. These standards have been summarised and collated for Australian IDC conditions in the Commission's Immigration Detention Guidelines (March 2000) .
Contents
3. Facilities, Conditions and Treatment at Curtin
3.2 Legal Assistance and Advice
3.7 Complaints and Consultation Arrangements
1 INTRODUCTION
The Commission has a long-standing interest in the issue of the mandatory detention of unauthorised arrivals in Australia - that is, people who arrive without valid travel documents. Following the release of the May 1998 report Those who've come across the seas: detention of unauthorised arrivals, the Commission has published two further reports. The first - Immigration Detention: Human Rights Commissioner's 1998-99 Review - surveyed the major immigration detention centres following their privatisation. The second dealt with a specific complaint of treatment in the detention centre in Perth (HRC Report No 10: Report of an Inquiry into a Complaint of Acts or Practices Inconsistent with or Contrary to Human Rights in an Immigration Detention Centre, June 2000).
The Commission maintains the view expressed in its 1998 report that the laws and policies mandating the detention of all but a small minority of unauthorised arrivals contravenes Australia's obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). However, while that policy is retained, the Commission continues to monitor and report on the treatment of detainees and the conditions of their detention both by receiving, investigating and attempting to conciliate individual complaints and by making regular inspection visits to all centres.
The human rights of asylum seekers held in detention are recognised at international law in a number of treaties. Most importantly, ICCPR article 7 provides that "No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment." Article 10 stipulates: "All persons deprived of their liberty shall be treated with humanity and with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person."
Immigration Detention Centres must ensure that detainees are treated in such a way as to satisfy international standards. The responsibility of ensuring compliance with these standards lies with the Australian Government through the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (DIMA).
In March 2000 the Commission published its Immigration Detention Guidelines which collate relevant international minimum standards and set out the minimum requirements that have to be met for Australia to be acting in accordance with its international human rights obligations. Throughout this report, reference to section numbers is to the principles outlined in the Guidelines.
In 1999 the influx of boat people from the Middle East led to the re-commissioning of a facility at Curtin Airbase near Derby in Western Australia (September 1999) and the commissioning of a new detention centre at Woomera in South Australia (November 1999). Both centres are managed and operated by Australasian Correctional Management (ACM), the same operator/provider responsible for the other immigration detention centres at Port Hedland and Perth in WA, Villawood in Sydney and Maribyrnong in Melbourne. ACM is contracted by DIMA, the responsible Commonwealth department, which remains ultimately responsible for any violations of detainees' human rights.
2 SUMMARY
At the date of the Commission's visit in late July 2000 the physical conditions at the Curtin IRPC were of an acceptable standard in many of the areas identified. However, some aspects of the operation of the centre were of concern.
Positive points of note are:
- the many improvements to the comfort, utility and aesthetics of the centre comparative to the conditions around the time of re-commissioning in 1999
- the employment of detainees in the preparation of culturally appropriate food
- the efforts made by ACM managers and staff to build links with the community in Derby in the interests of the detainees
- the institution of outings for children to play volleyball in Derby
- the moves being made to secure two computers as part of the education and training offered to detainees although these had not yet arrived at the time of the Commission's visit
- the existence of a detainee/ACM consultative committee
- improved access to phone lines to facilitate access to lawyers, advisers and families outside the centre.
The Commission notes the logistical and other difficulties associated with setting up new facilities to cope with the sudden influx of detainees that occurred in 1999. Nevertheless, substantial problems persist that cannot be explained solely by pressures of time and numbers, in particular:
- The continued refusal to advise new arrivals of their right to request legal assistance (Immigration Detention Guidelines section 2.1).
- The alleged failure to provide legal assistance upon request to some individuals who have been 'screened in' to the asylum application process (Guidelines section 4.4).
- The inappropriateness of the detention environment for children.
- The practice of referring to detainees predominantly by number rather than by their given or proper names.
- The inadequacy of clothing and bedding provided to detainees (Guidelines sections 9.1, 9.5 and 9.6).
- The inadequacy of phone lines and of access for lawyers and others needing to contact detainees (Guidelines sections 3.6 and 4.1).
- Concerns about access to health services, with particular concerns expressed about the availability of dental and ophthalmology services (Guidelines Part 13).
3 FACILITIES, CONDITIONS AND TREATMENT AT CURTIN
3.1 Information for Detainees
Standards
Detainees should receive information, in a language and format they can understand, about the reasons for their detention and their rights and obligations in detention. This should be provided as soon as possible upon their reception into detention (Guidelines section 2.1). Detainees' rights include the right to request legal assistance and to complain to the Commonwealth Ombudsman and the Commission. They must, therefore, be advised promptly of these rights (Guidelines section 2.2).
Principle 13 of the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons Under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment states: "Any person shall, at the moment of arrest and at the commencement of detention or imprisonment, or promptly thereafter, be provided by the authority responsible for his arrest, detention or imprisonment, respectively with information on and an explanation of his rights and how to avail himself of such rights".
Provision at Curtin IRPC
The detainees' consultative committee commented on the improvements that had been made at the centre and asked that the Commission record their appreciation to DIMA and ACM. The one area of common complaint related to the provision of information. All agreed that the length of time taken to process their claims created pressures and that few people in the camp understood what was happening. One detainee stated, "We don't know why people are being accepted or rejected. We would like to know why. They are keeping us in the dark (so that) we don't know our destiny". He complained that one detainee had been detained for 10 months and had then been rejected and that there seemed to be no rhyme or reason as to who was accepted and who was rejected.
DIMA should engage in more effective dialogue with the detainees so as to inform them of the processes involved in determining refugee claims in Australia. The detainees are effective networkers within the centre. Where communication with the management is inadequate, there would appear to be a real and foreseeable danger of shared and repeated misunderstandings occurring within the detainee population.
3.2 Legal Assistance and Advice
Standards
In combination Principles 17, 18 and 32 of the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment specify that the following requirements should be met in relation to the legal assistance available to detainees.
- Detainees are to be informed of their right to legal assistance promptly after being taken into detention.
- Detainees are to be given adequate time and facilities for consultation with their legal counsel.
- Detainees are to be allowed to communicate with their legal counsel in full confidentiality, unless exceptional circumstances exist.
- Where a detainee does not have sufficient means to afford legal assistance, he or she is entitled to be assigned legal assistance when the interests of justice so require.
- Communications between detainees and their legal counsel are to be inadmissible as evidence unless they are connected with a continuing or completed crime.
Provision at Curtin IRPC
According to the DIMA Manager, of the 830 detainees at Curtin at the time of the Commission's visit in July 2000, all but 25 had been 'screened in' to the refugee determination process. The remaining 25 were being held in a compound separated by two wire fences screened with tarpaulins. They had been interviewed by DIMA officers but had not been given access to legal assistance. The Manager stated that none of the 25 had requested legal assistance.
In his 1998-99 Review the Human Rights Commissioner wrote:
Migration Act 1958 (Cth) section 256 requires the provision of legal assistance upon request. Section 193 requires all detainees to be notified of their right to make such a request with the exception of those who have arrived unlawfully by boat or plane (ie without a valid visa). In their case the Act does not require the authorities to notify the detainee of the right to make such a request. The Department's position is that the legislation prevents its officers notifying unauthorised arrivals of their rights. In the Commission's view, it does not.The Government's position is that the effect of the legislation is consistent with international law. In the Commission's view, it is not.
The Commission's view is that this situation is wrong in law and principle. Article 9.4 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) requires that all detainees have an opportunity to challenge their detention in a court of law. Article 14.1 requires the court to be "competent, independent and impartial" and the hearing to be "fair and public". 'Fairness' must at least require that the individual have an opportunity to present his or her case effectively by reference to Australian law and in accordance with Australian procedures. For unauthorised arrivals with little or no understanding of Australia's Migration Act and, typically, very little English language comprehension, effective presentation requires the assistance of an independent advocate with expertise in migration and refugee law. In other words, compliance with ICCPR articles 9.4 and 14.1 requires that detainees have ready access to independent legal advice and assistance.
In July 2000 the UN Human Rights Committee observed with respect to Australia's practice:
The Committee considers that the mandatory detention under the Migration Act of 'unlawful non-citizens', including asylum seekers, raises questions of compliance with article 9, paragraph 1, of the Covenant, which provides that no person shall be subjected to arbitrary detention. The Committee is concerned at the State party's policy, in this context of mandatory detention, of not informing the detainees of their right to seek legal advice and of not allowing access of non-governmental human rights organizations to the detainees in order to inform them of this right.
The Committee recommended as follows:
The Committee urges the State party to reconsider its policy of mandatory detention of 'unlawful non-citizens' with a view to instituting alternative mechanisms of maintaining an orderly immigration process. The Committee recommends that the State party inform all detainees of their legal rights, including their right to seek legal counsel. [1]
Failure to provide legal advice on request not only violates international minimum human rights standards but also Australian law (Migration Act 1958 section 256).
3.3 Other Outside Contacts
Standards
The significance of contacts with the outside world and in particular with family and friends is expressly recognised in Principle 19 of the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment which provides: "A detained or imprisoned person shall have the right to be visited by and to correspond with, in particular, members of his family and shall be given adequate opportunity to communicate with the outside world, subject to reasonable conditions and restrictions as specified in law or lawful regulations". Immigration detention centres should have effective policies that allow detainees to have contact with family and friends outside detention while still maintaining detention security. At least weekly contact should be permitted (Guidelines section 4.1).
Provision at Curtin IRPC
Following a lengthy period in which all detainees were unable to make contact with the outside world - either within Australia or overseas - there are now four telephones at the centre, one for incoming calls and three for outgoing calls. Detainees are not provided with newspapers although televisions and videos are available. Although a very significant improvement on the earlier situation, the number of telephones remains inadequate for a centre with over 800 detainees.
3.4 Children in Detention
Standards
Children are recognised at international law as being vulnerable and more susceptible to harm than adults. Accordingly, article 3(1) of the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CROC) requires that, in any action concerning children, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration. CROC further stipulates that
- the detention of a child must be in conformity with the law and only be used as a measure of last resort and for the shortest appropriate period of time (article 37(b))
- a child is not to be separated from his or her parents against their will, except where this is in the child's best interests (article 9), and the legal rights and responsibilities of parents are to be respected (article 5)
- the State Party must undertake all appropriate measures to promote physical and psychological recovery for child victims of neglect, exploitation, torture or any other form of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (article 39).
Asylum seeker children are to receive "appropriate protection and humanitarian assistance in the enjoyment of their [CROC and other human rights]" (article 22(1)).
Provision at Curtin IRPC
At the time of the Commission's visit in July 2000 there were 128 children in the centre. Centre staff appeared to be doing whatever they could to assist the children in the detention environment. However, the basic problem is detention itself. The Commission is concerned that so many children should be detained in a centre as remote as Curtin IRPC where there is a large contingent of single male detainees, many of whom have themselves been the subject of continuing stress, deprivation and trauma. The alleged commission of sex offences against two child detainees is indicative of the perils inherent in the centre arrangements.
Allegations of sexual abuse of children
The Commission was informed that charges of sexual abuse of two children at Curtin have been laid against two male detainees. The DIMA Manager reported that the incident had prompted the management to institute education programs for detainees on matters relating to child sex offences under Australian law. Staff at the centre have also been counselled about the need for vigilance on behalf of detained children. Without commenting on those charges, the Commission is concerned that the detention environment places children at risk of sexual and physical abuse.
Play facilities
At Curtin IRPC there is no playground although there is a table tennis table and video. A demountable was reserved for the use of women and children at the time of the Commission's visit. The Commission was informed that this had been found necessary as the male detainees refused to allow the women and children into the general television area.
The Commission was provided with a timetable detailing the recreational and educational programs at the centre. The Commission was informed that the centre had instituted excursions to Derby for the child detainees. When pressed the DIMA Manager explained that nine children had been taken to play volleyball at Derby during the week preceding the Commission's visit. The Commission was told that moves to allow the children to swim in the Derby swimming pool had met with resistance from local residents.
3.5 Staffing
Standards
Being able to work with detainees is more than simply a case of being able to tolerate an isolated environment. It requires special skills to assist highly emotional, confused and traumatised people in a sensitive and caring way. A sensitive approach is especially required in the case of victims of torture or other serious human rights abuses. Principle 2 of the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment requires that detention be managed "by competent officials or persons authorised for that purpose". Staff at immigration detention centres need to be appropriately qualified and trained to interact with administrative detainees (that is, people who have not been sentenced for any crime) (Guidelines section 16.2).
Provision at Curtin IRPC
The detainees' consultative committee interviewed by the Commission offered no criticisms of staffing at Curtin, although all agreed that all aspects of the centre were "much improved" since the early days of their detention. The ACM Manager informed the Commission that every one of the guards at Curtin undertakes a course in critical incident management during orientation. However, a health professional who had worked at Curtin IRPC described the Curtin staff as having an 'us and them' approach to detainees and showing no indication of sympathy for the situation of their charges.
The Commission accepts that the necessary haste in establishing Curtin in 1999 led to staff placed there not being adequately trained. However, with the immediate pressure eased, intensive training for staff remains a necessary priority.
3.6 Security and Discipline
Standards
Some degree of security and discipline is required to ensure an appropriate standard of behaviour and the maintenance of civil order in any detention facility. However, it is essential that any security measures and disciplinary action be conducted in a respectful and humane manner. ICCPR article 10 requires that all detainees must be "treated with humanity and with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person". Torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment and punishment are outlawed (article 7).
The right to privacy is also relevant to security. Interference with detainees' privacy must not be unlawful or arbitrary (article 17).
A detained person should be given the right to be heard before any disciplinary action is implemented. Principle 30(2) Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment stipulates: "A detained or imprisoned person shall have the right to be heard before disciplinary action is taken. He shall have the right to bring such action to higher authorities for review."
Disciplinary action must never, under any circumstances, involve the use of force that is disproportionate to the action that it seeks to correct (the issue of Use of Force is discussed below).
Provision at Curtin IRPC
On a tour of the centre the Commission was shown the facilities for isolating and observing detainees. The section is referred to as 'Hotel' [2] and is constituted by a row of demountable buildings that are air-conditioned but otherwise empty, sealed units with a single uncurtained window. The DIMA Manager stated that the rooms were used for anyone "undermining the good order of the centre", as "timeout" for the protagonists of an unresolved fight. He said that the rooms were used for the least amount of time possible. For example, people returned to the centre from prison after escaping in June 2000 were held in these rooms for two days, with the first day used as a debriefing period and the second with the detainee allowed back into the camp community under close supervision of the staff. The DIMA Manager suggested that detainees sometimes requested time in the 'Hotel' unit.
Normal practice at the centre is for ACM staff to call detainees by number rather than by name. Centre managers gave the following reasons for this practice: the detainees all had similar names; they were difficult to pronounce; they changed their names. The Commission considers that there is no practical reason why detainees cannot be called by the name of their choice. This does not prevent numbers being used as identifiers in a broad administrative context, for example, as part of the refugee determination process.
3.7 Complaints and Consultation Arrangements
Standards
An effective complaint resolution mechanism must be in place to ensure that detainees' complaints are treated seriously and confidentially. This is recognised in Principle 33 of the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment which provides that detainees should be entitled to complain about their treatment to the detention authorities and to higher authorities. Australian law entitles immigration detainees to complain to the Commonwealth Ombudsman and the Commission.
Provision at Curtin IRPC
The ACM Manager advised the Commission that the detainees' consultative committee members were chosen by management without consultation with detainees. None of the members spoke English with sufficient confidence to speak without an interpreter.
The group stated that it served as a mechanism for dialogue with centre management and that it met every three to four weeks. The group stated that they had no real complaints about the centre as it now operates. This committee had been selected some three weeks prior to the Commission's visit.
The Commission did not observe copies of its posters or those of the Commonwealth Ombudsman on display in the centre. However, the detainees in the main compounds seemed to have a good idea about the identity of the Human Rights Commissioner and about the purpose of his visit.
3.8 Accommodation, Food and Clothing
Standards
Accommodation, food and clothing for detainees must "meet the requirements of health and human dignity" (Guidelines section 9.1). Detainees must not be exposed to the elements and must not be expected to endure extremes of heat or cold. Detention centres should strive to allow some privacy, especially during ablutions (Guidelines section 9.7).
Provision at Curtin IRPC
Accommodation All detainees interviewed complained that the original accommodation was uncomfortable and inadequate. The accommodation during the first six weeks was in tents, with poor ablution and other facilities.
Conditions at the centre have improved dramatically in the intervening months. Detainees are now housed in demountable buildings, referred to as 'dongas'. Most are air-conditioned, with 16 people to a unit. No separate accommodation is available for women and children, although family groups are housed together. The detainees' consultative committee stated that there were no serious complaints, although the bedding supplied was inadequate on the colder winter nights.
Ablutions
The ablution facilities provided when the centre was first recommissioned were criticised by detainees. The Commission was told that, at that time, the toilets and showers leaked and that the camp was cut by flows of sewage that both smelled bad and attracted swarms of flies and mosquitoes.
By July 2000 the demountables fitted out as shower and toilet blocks were generally adequate. The Commission was told that ACM faced difficulties because of the cultural differences in the toilet and bathing habits of the detainees, which led to frequent flooding of the facilities. The Commission's observation was that the demountable buildings were not well drained, with evidence of water flowing out from the shower and outlet areas. More importantly, they did not appear to be adequate for the high level use demanded of them.
Meals
The detainees all complained about the quality and quantity of food in the period before about May 2000. By the date of the Commission's visit in July 2000, however, attempts were being made to provide culturally appropriate food for all detainees. Detainees were doing most of the cooking.
The Commission inspected the kitchen and mess area while a meal was in preparation. It was informed that detainees have a choice of vegetarian or meat dishes and that Halal meat is used for Muslim detainees. The preparation areas appeared to be clean and well organised.
Clothing
The Curtin IRPC now has a demountable set aside as a sewing room. The Commission was shown piles of cotton clothing, including children's clothing and adult sized shirts made by the detainees. The DIMA Manager stated that detainees were free to come to the building and ask for clothing as needed.
This account is somewhat at odds with that of detainees interviewed. The detainees' consultative committee stated that families with children were permitted new clothes for their children every two months but complained that the clothing provided was made from a thin cotton fabric inadequate for the cold weather sometimes experienced. They stated that they occasionally received clothes from Islamic charities but that the supply was irregular and they were told to "be patient".
3.9 Physical and Mental Health
Standards
Immigration detainees are entitled to medical treatment and care provided in a manner that is culturally appropriate and which respects the inherent dignity of the human person. That treatment and care should be commensurate with that provided in the general Australian community (Guidelines section 13.1).
Detainees who have experienced traumatic circumstances prior to detention often require extensive medical treatment, both of a mental and physical nature. This need is intensified by the fact that being in detention can itself heighten such problems. Accordingly, Principle 24 of the Body of Principles requires that a proper medical examination be offered to a detained person as promptly as possible after his or her admission to detention. Further, subject to requirements to ensure security, detainees should also be given the opportunity of seeking a second medical opinion where this is desired (Principle 25).
Provision at Curtin IRPC
As in other areas, the medical facilities and treatment at Curtin IRPC in July appeared to be a vast improvement over the situation in place earlier in the year. These improvements are very welcome.
Curtin IRPC now has one full time doctor on site, who is on site five days a week and on call after hours. There are 12 nurses on staff providing a 24-hour clinic. The nursing staff includes individuals with expertise in all the major areas: pediatrics, psychiatry, gynaecology and general medicine. The centre also makes use of the regional hospital at Derby. On at least one occasion a detainee has been flown to Port Hedland for a CAT scan and surgical cases have been transferred to Perth. The centre has been assisted in such transfers by the Royal Flying Doctor Service that has an operational centre in Derby.
The DIMA Manager responded to concerns he said had been raised about over-servicing of the detainees. He said this perception might arise because of the past practice of rotating doctors, which sometimes led to a series of doctors seeing and treating patients.
The Commission inquired about a child detainee who presented at the centre with a clubfoot. The Manager stated that an orthopedic surgeon had assessed the child but that treatment was a long-term project that was pointless to initiate while the child was in detention and that the treatment was not needed urgently. He said that the child would have been treated if the advice was that treatment was urgently required and that every effort was being made to expedite the processing of the claims made by the child's parents but that delays were being experienced from overseas.
When asked about the use of chemical restraints on detainees, the mental health professionals interviewed stated that they were not aware of any instances of inappropriate use of such restraints, although they were aware that the centre had a good supply of sedative drugs.
The consultative committee stated that access to medical care at the centre was generally adequate in July 2000, except in the two areas of dental and eye care. One detainee complained that a detainee who complains of toothache is given the choice of either having the tooth extracted free of charge or paying for a filling. The detainee stated that he knew of a man who had paid $100 to have two teeth filled. He said that for many detainees the only option is to have the tooth pulled out. The detainee stated that while the centre would test the vision of detainees it would not provide glasses unless the detainee could pay for them.
3.10 Education
Standards
The right to education is recognised at international law as a fundamental right of all people. Article 13 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights requires States Parties to direct education to "the full development of the human personality and the sense of its dignity". However, the provision of proper education is especially critical for children. CROC article 28(1) requires States Parties to:
- make primary education compulsory and available free to all, and
- encourage the development of different forms of secondary education, including general and vocational education, make them available and accessible to every child, and take appropriate measures such as the introduction of free education and offering financial assistance in case of need.
In accordance with this requirement, children in immigration detention centres are entitled to be provided with education to assist in their educational and social development. They are not to be denied this right merely because they are in detention and isolated from traditional forms of schooling.
Provision at Curtin IRPC
The management at Curtin now provides educational programs for both adult and child detainees. The children have school for 5 days each week, from 8.30am - 3pm. The programs focus on English, mathematics and self esteem. Adult classes run from 3 - 7pm. The schedule of classes includes computer classes from 3 - 4pm and English language and communication classes from 4 - 6pm. Formal language classes are given by three qualified teachers on ACM staff and nine detainees and some visiting students, with 16 classes of one hour's duration each, seven days a week. The Manager stated that an average of 71 students attended each day of a total of 380 adults undertaking educational programs. He said that computer training was to be provided by detainees with experience as computer programmers. Staff informed the Commission that two computers were on order from Derby but that they had not yet arrived at the centre. Accordingly, the Commission understood that the reference to computer classes was to classes envisaged to commence once the computers arrived.
At the time of the Commission's visit there were 128 children in the centre. The educational arrangements for them appeared to be basic but adequate provided the period in detention is short. The Commission was provided with a timetable detailing the recreational and educational programs at the centre described above. The teachers observed during the Commission's visit appeared enthusiastic.
The detainees' consultative committee expressed no major complaints about the teaching schedule, although one detainee stated that older children were disadvantaged as they fitted comfortably into neither the children's nor the adults' program. The detainee stated that these children felt that they were "losing a year of their life". The group stated that the present programs had been put in place over the three months preceding the Commission's visit.
3.11 Recreation and Work
Standards
Immigration detainees should have the facilities to utilise their time constructively. The isolation, conditions and indeterminate nature of immigration detention are such as to jeopardise the already precarious physical well-being and mental health of many detainees. Boredom and futility must not be allowed to exacerbate this risk (Guidelines section 7.2).
Provision at Curtin IRPC
The Commission observed that detainees were given the opportunity to participate in sporting competitions such as football tournaments, volleyball, basketball, table tennis, dancing, aerobics, weight lifting and walking. As mentioned above, an effort had been made shortly before the Commission's visit to institute sporting outings for the children to Derby. The DIMA Manager stated that nine of the children had been taken to play volleyball at the courts in Derby. The detainees' consultative committee confirmed that the children had been delighted with their outing. The Commission welcomes this initiative but considers that a more comprehensive and sustained program is required to allow the children out of the centre as much as possible.
In relation to work at the centre, the DIMA Manager explained the regime that had been developed so as to allow detainees to work and earn 'points' by way of reward. Detainees are employed in many different activities around the centre. Reference has already been made to the nine detainees employed as English language teachers. Other jobs include cooking, food preparation and serving, cleaning, gardening and sewing. The Commission was shown a series of murals on the demountables painted by an artist among the detainees and the demountable set aside as a sewing room, with the piles of clothes and accessories made by detainees.
The Commission's visit in July 2000 coincided with the designation of a TV/recreation building for women and children. The DIMA Manager explained that this measure was necessary because the male detainees had refused to allow women and children into the building housing the main television and video facilities.
The Commission was also shown the canteen where detainees can buy groceries and basic necessities either with cash or with the points that they have earned through the programs in operation. Detainees can earn a maximum of 35 points a week. The DIMA Manager stated that competition for the better jobs such as cooking is keen. The system observed by the Commission appeared to be well organised although the opportunities for work were far fewer than the demands of the detainees for it.
3.12 Religion and Culture
Standards
Freedom of religious belief and practice is a fundamental right which should be secured to the maximum extent possible in immigration detention (Guidelines 5.1).
Provision at Curtin IRPC
Everyone interviewed by the Commission commented on the surprising lack of discord in the centre over matters of religion. The DIMA Manager stated that one of the detainees was an Imam who was able to officiate at prayer sessions. A place is set aside for religious worship. The Manager stated that provision is made for detainees of different faiths to celebrate religious festivals. Halal meats are provided for observant Muslim detainees. Christian services are also conducted. The current arrangements at Curtin appear to comply with the rights and interests of the detainees.
1. The Committee's Concluding Observations can be read at http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/MasterFrameView/e1015b8a76fec400c125694900433654?Opendocument
2. The name reflects the alphabetical naming of the different compounds at the centre rather than the type of accommodation offered.
L
